Friday, July 29, 2011

Over the last few months, I've had a number person chastise me on these pages for being so "even-handed" on the current political climate. Most of the respondents who tend to be liberal, get upset that I try to say their is some blame on the Democratic side. In the minds, they can't understand why I just can't see that this is all the Republicans fault.

I don't think I'm trying to split the blame 50-50 when I do take the political system to task. I think there are many cases where the GOP is more at fault than the Democrats. I think the GOP needs to get off its "no taxes" kick. I think the GOP does need to clean up its act moreso than the Dems.

But I don't think the Democrats at blameless. I don't see them as victims. But that's what those who complain want me to say: that the Democrats are wonderful, good-hearted victims, that have made conscessions to heartless Republicans. They want that the press and the general public punish the GOP for extremism and let the Dems do what they believe needs to be done.

The problem is that in the real world, no one is all innocent or all evil. We are all limited and fallible human beings and politicians are not immune. Here's what Paul Krugman said today about "centrists" who want to place equal blame on both parties:

Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing....

So what’s with the buzz about a centrist uprising? As I see it, it’s coming from people who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics, but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. And it’s not hard to guess at their motivation. After all, pointing out the obvious truth gets you labeled as a shrill partisan, not just from the right, but from the ranks of self-proclaimed centrists.

But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.

Clive Crook is also wondering why folks like Paul Krugman think the answer is just to put all the blame on Republicans:

Paul Krugman and EJ Dionne agree that too much centrism is what ails the United States. What the country needs is fewer moderates and more people ready to stand firm on principle come what may. (Actually Dionne draws a distinction that eludes me between moderation and centrism--they are not just different but opposed--but let that pass.)

Lacking a Nobel prize, I find this theory odd. If only centrists would come over to the left and deplore Republicans more vigorously, all would be well? Right now, I would be willing to help out--but would this do much to reduce the House Republican majority? If centrist commentators only joined Krugman's anti-Republican crusade, the country would see its mistake and put things right at the next election? It's flattering, but surely we feeble soggy centrists have nothing to offer that would improve on the quality of the arguments already put forward by writers such as Krugman, Dionne, and many others. Surely they are refuting conservatism as effectively as anybody can.

Of course, what Krugman wants is for the GOP to be entirely discredited if not simply disappear. But that's not going to happen anymore than the Democrat would fade from existence and frankly, you aren't going win centrists over if you come accross in the same snippy tones that Krugman is so good at.

In non-democratic societies, the dictators love to see themselves as angels fighting whatever demon that threatens their powerbase. But in a democratic society, all we have are fallible humans, which means that we all have some (not equal) blame.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The biggest problem with Huntsman’s campaign isn’t his centrist ideology; it’s his campaign’s tactics. Huntsman has decided to ignore the fundamental rule of politics—a campaign is about contrasting your record against those of your opponents. Instead of taking on President Obama, he’s praised Obama’s good intentions and avoided outlining many areas of disagreement. He’s run to the left of the president on Afghanistan, calling for faster and deeper troop withdrawals. And at a time when voters are hungry for solutions, he offered a platitude-filled kickoff speech that barely touched on the economic problems that Americans want solved.

This is a Republican Party that wants head-on confrontation with Obama, but Huntsman is selling détente and civility. It’s an electorate that wants a candidate who identifies with the struggles that Americans are dealing with. Instead, his introductory campaign video focused on his love of motocross—an image of recreation at a time when the country is facing major economic pain. Huntsman is also courting independents in the New Hampshire primary, whom he assumes are in the mold of Michael Bloomberg but are as disaffected as any group out there. (In the latest July Granite State poll, 61 percent of independents said the nation was headed in the wrong direction, with a 47 percent plurality disapproving of Obama.)

Huntsman has a good story to tell. He governed Utah at a time of economic prosperity, lowered taxes, and opposed abortion rights. He was one of the first presidential candidates to come out squarely for Paul Ryan’s entitlement reforms—which have become close to conservative orthodoxy these days. His apostasy is hardly more egregious than that of George W. Bush, who championed comprehensive immigration reform, downplayed social issues, and acknowledged climate change. Like Huntsman, Bush even expressed his distaste for “nation building” in the 2000 presidential race, though he clearly shifted his views after the 9/11 attacks.

But unlike Bush, Huntsman is making little attempt to sell his conservative views to voters. Instead, he’s offering a milquetoast message, believing that Republican voters prefer conciliation over confrontation. Bush ran his 2000 campaign on the theme of “compassionate conservatism;” there’s no sign Huntsman is campaigning on anything conservative.

Kraushaar makes some good guesses and I think there is some truth to all of this. But instead of merely talking about the article, I want to answer Solomon's question. So here are a few reasons why Huntsman isn't going anywhere right now.

It isn't 2009 anymore. I do think Kraushaar is right here. After the 2008 election, there were a lot of folks, myself included, that said it was time for the GOP to moderate, to be more open to centrists and independents. By 2010, the GOP had scored several victories to be within striking distance of taking the Senate, and took back the House from the Dems. All the talk of being more moderate ended. I like Huntsman and I still think the GOP needs to moderate. But it's not 2009 anymore. What is selling is trying to be conservative. He has to find a way to remain open to moderates and also speak to conservatives who want to talk about cutting spending and taxes. It's a delicate balance, but he has to do that in the changed climate.

Michelle Bachmann. The congresswoman from my current home state of Minnesota has basically sucked the air out of the room. The media is focusing on her and she is leading in Iowa polls. Get a conservative firebrand and everyone pays attention. Huntsman's more modest campaign can't really compete with Bachmann's presence, at least at this moment.

Debt talks. Most of the media is focused on the debt ceiling talks and that has pushed the GOP presidential race to a distant second.

The Vision thing. I don't like Michelle Bachmann and I think she is plumb loco, but you at least know where she stands. As Krushnaar notes, Huntman is selling a more genteel Republicanism that prefers "concilation over confrontation". In many ways, I resemble that description. But I think Huntman and indeed, most of moderate-centrist pols and movements fail because they lack a fire in the belly. Compromise is a good thing, but I tend to think that a problem with folks like myself and Huntsman is that compromise becomes an end in and of itself. I think people want folks to compromise, but they also want the folks to stand for something. Huntsman's record does indicate a good governing conservative, but he hasn't really communicated that and he hasn't done it with a sense of passion. He used the backdrop of the Statue of Liberty to announce his campaign, evoking Ronald Reagan. Nice, but he also needs to evoke some of Reagan's passion as well.

It's only July of 2011 for Pete's sake! We seem to forget that New Hampshire and Iowa are still months away and anything can change. Remember how McCain's campaign was imploding in the summer of 2007? And yet, somehow he ended up the Republican nominee. Bachmann, might be the bees knees now, but will she be come January of 2012? Huntsman still has time to get his message out there.

Tyler Craft takes issue with Grover Norquist's assertion that the decision by then-president George Bush to raise taxes led the nation into a recession:

George H.W. Bush’s famous (or infamous, depending on one’s point of view) increase to taxes (and reversal in his, in my opinion, foolish “no new taxes” pledge) came out of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990, which took affect on January 1, 1991. So what actually happened? Technically yes (see graph below), the United States went into a recession following the OBRA of 1990 going into effect. Per the official definition of a recession, that a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth (I’m using real GDP figures), the United States experienced negative growth in the fourth quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. HOWEVER, the largest period of economic contraction actually occurred in 1990 NOT 1991. The first quarter of 1991 showed a trend of growth beginning that would continue throughout the rest of the 1990s. So using Grover Norquist’s post hoc ergo propter hoc view of the world, The OBRA of 1990 actually brought the country OUT of a recession rather than INTO a recession – of course this would be equally (well maybe not quite equally) fallacious....

One of Norquist’s economic statements was correct; spending did grow following the OBRA of 1990 and along with it the deficit. In fact, public debt as a percent of GDP in the mid-1990s is very similar to its levels in the mid-2000s (around 67% of GDP in each case) – of course we all know that the late-1990s and late-2000s saw deficit and debt figures move in opposite directions (surpluses in the ‘90s reduced debt while growing deficits in the 2000s caused even higher debt). There is, again, more to this story however. The next graph illustrates how total spending and non-defense spending evolved for the last few decades compared to GDP. It shows relative rises with respect to GDP around the time of various recessions and also shows the spike Norquist alluded to in 1991. This is where the data does not tell the whole story and the historical narrative provides some important information. The OBRA of 1990 was not the first budget proposal by President Bush that year, it was actually the third. The first included spending cuts with no tax increases and was rejected by Democrats, the second included spending cuts with tax increases and was rejected by Republicans, and the third was accepted. Interestingly enough, the third proposal increased spending more than the second proposal, but came in the face of government shutdown, which forced enough support to get higher taxes through. The third option also shifted much of the tax increases from excise increases to income tax increases, which is also less conservative – although preferable from a growth and equity perspective.

The race for president isn’t a national contest. It’s a state-by-state battle to cobble an electoral vote majority. So while the national polls are useful in gauging the president’s popularity, the more instructive numbers are those from the battlegrounds.

Those polls are even more ominous for the president: In every reputable battleground state poll conducted over the past month, Obama’s support is weak. In most of them, he trails Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. For all the talk of a closely fought 2012 election, if Obama can’t turn around his fortunes in states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, next year’s presidential election could end up being a GOP landslide.

Take Ohio, a perennial battleground in which Obama has campaigned more than in any other state (outside of the D.C. metropolitan region). Fifty percent of Ohio voters now disapprove of his job performance, compared with 46 percent who approve, according to a Quinnipiac poll conducted from July 12-18.

Among Buckeye State independents, only 40 percent believe that Obama should be reelected, and 42 percent approve of his job performance. Against Romney, Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent—well below the 50 percent comfort zone for an incumbent.

The news gets worse from there. In Michigan, a reliably Democratic state that Obama carried with 57 percent of the vote, an EPIC-MRA poll conducted July 9-11 finds him trailing Romney, 46 percent to 42 percent. Only 39 percent of respondents grade his job performance as “excellent” or good,” with 60 percent saying it is “fair” or “poor.” The state has an unemployment rate well above the national average, and the president’s approval has suffered as a result.

I still think it's just way too early to start thinking that Obama is in trouble. While things look pretty dark for the president right now and the economy is in the tank, we are still well over a year before the election and six months before the GOP primaries begin. If we start seeing these week numbers in February or April of 2012, then its time for the Obama team to worry.

The other factor is that we don't know who the GOP nominee will be. It very well could be Romney, but you can never count Michelle Bachmann out. Who that challenger will be and how they run their campaign will be a factor in whether or not Obama gets a second term.

Observing the current crisis, Wendy Kaminer thinks a third political party would only make things worse, not better:

But perhaps the greatest fallacy of the third party movement is the unspoken, perhaps unacknowledged, underlying assumption that members of a third party would be more informed, intelligent, and rational and less self-interested and demagogic than members of the first and second parties. What if the problem isn't the two party system but the flawed human beings who would also participate, as voters and candidates, in a three party system? What if the problem, in part, is us?

Now Kaminer is well to the left for my tastes, but there is a grain of truth in what she says. I don't think a third party is going to easily solve all our problems. A third party is not going to automatically be better informed or less suscpetible to partisanship. A third party might only make the situation worse.

I've more than once have fallen for the temptation that a "knight in shining armor" in the form a third party will just solve everything. But that's the wrong reason to want to see a third party. If one is going to support a strong third party, it has to be to give people more choice in politics or to represent a group that doesn't feel currently represented in the current system.

But Kaminer's last statement is the one that I think it most interesting. I think it has been easy for us to lampoon those idiots in Washington and to see ourselves as pure and innocent, just wanting to get something done. The problem with that is because in a representative system, we elect the candidates. We support candidates that tend to be the most uncompromising. We throw out members that even dare to talk with the other side.

The problem is totally the fault of the populace, but it does share a good amount of the blame because we elect these folks to Washington to do our bidding.

What's happening in DC with the debt ceiling; this unwillingness to compromise is as much mirroring contemporary American society than it is that Washington is dysfunctional. We live in little universes where the only people that matter agree with each other and where the other side is not simply wrong, but evil. All you have to do is look at Facebook to see people posting about how bad conservative/liberals are and how they are on the side of the angels.

The world that we now live in is one where we really don't talk to each other. We go to places of worship where everyone seems to agree with each other. We have mostly friends who share our world view. There are few public places where we have to get along with each other.

So, if we live in such segregated worlds, why on earth do we expect Washington to be any different?

A third party alone is not going to be the savior of our nation. Unless the American people are willing to change themselves, then we can't expect change from Washington.

Jonathan Rauch has an fascinating piece on how the upcoming 2012 General Election is in effect part two of the 1912 election:

The Republican incumbent, William Howard Taft, was a conservative traditionalist who saw the Constitution as providing a short leash on federal power. He faced no fewer than three significant opponents that year, the most formidable being none other than his Republican predecessor in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt had come to believe that a narrow view of federal power left Washington unable to cope with the challenges of the industrial age. He broke with Taft to lead a new party of his own, the Progressive Party.

Jumping on the same bandwagon but shrewdly presenting more mainstream alternative, Democrats nominated a progressive of their own, Woodrow Wilson. And there was an important fourth candidate, the Socialist Party’s Eugene V. Debs, who led American socialism to its only respectable electoral performance: 6 percent of the popular vote.

Roosevelt’s progressives believed that only a stronger, more centralized national government, vigorously led by a powerful presidency, could cope with giant corporations and the increasingly national — indeed, global — economy. Expert-led bureaucracies would guide a newly empowered Washington away from cronyism and toward innovative, impartial solutions.

The Constitution, the progressives insisted, was no pair of rusty shackles. It must flex to accommodate the people’s desires and the nation’s needs. “The people are the masters of their Constitution,” declared the Progressive Party’s 1912 platform. The country’s “resources, its business, its institutions and its laws should be utilized, maintained or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest.”

Taft opposed all those principles. He argued for localism, limited government and a constitution that worked like a brake, not an accelerator. The progressives, he warned, would demolish the government’s “checks upon hasty popular action.”

Sounds familiar, doesn't it. Taft lost the election big time, and while Roosevelt lost, he basically won the argument. That set forth the expansion of federal power in American society that has held until this very day.

But a few mainstream writers have begun to see how the progressive era might be winding down. Robert Samuelson notes that the old order, which he describes as the modern welfare state that has been in place since the closing days of WWII is crumbling:

The old order, constructed by most democracies after World War II, rested on three pillars. One was the welfare state. Government would protect the unemployed, aged, disabled and poor. Capitalism would be tamed. A second was faith in economic growth; this would raise everyone's living standards while permitting income redistribution. Growth was ordained, because economists had learned enough from the 1930s to cure periodic recessions. Finally, global trade and finance served countries' mutual interests.

All three pillars are wobbling. To be sure, the financial crisis worsened matters, and each country's situation is different. America's welfare state is less generous than Germany's. Greece's crisis began because it had vastly underreported its budget deficit; Ireland's stemmed from a burst housing bubble that led to a costly bank bailout. But these differences obscure large similarities.

Start with the welfare state. A blessing to many, it's also a common burden. Its expansion was huge. In 1950, government spending as a share of a nation's economy (gross domestic product) was 28 percent in France, 30 percent in Germany and 21 percent in the United States. By 1999, figures were 52 percent of GDP in France, 48 percent in Germany and 30 percent in the United States, according to the late economics historian Angus Maddison. Aging societies would boost future costs for social security and health care. From 2008 to 2050, the 65- plus population is projected to rise 40 percent in Germany, 77 percent in France and 121 percent in the United States.

Given this outlook, even countries without immediate crises are embracing austerity measures. All face a ruinous choice: The higher taxes or deficits needed to finance more welfare spending might further damage the economy, but cutting benefits stirs popular backlash. Still, benefits are now vulnerable. Ireland cut benefits for the unemployed by about 10 percent, reduced child payments by 16 percent and, beginning in 2014, will gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 68.

Enter the Tea Party. Just as we saw their predecessor in 1912 try to fight off an ascendent progressivism, we see them now as progressivism is at its nadir.

Does this mean the Taft/Tea Party side is now on the right side of history? Probably not. But the rise of Tea Party means that the old progressive order no longer makes sense in the 21st century.

Teddy Roosevelt could see the changes in the nation and made the case for strong federal government. Do we have a TR for our time that can see the changes coming down the road in economics and tailor a government to fit the times.

I don't think the Tea Party's rigid constitutionalism is the answer, but they are a sign that what has worked for a century isn't going to work anymore.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Back in December of 2010 Clive Crook had some harsh words to say about the launching of the centrist organization, No Labels. To say he wasn't impressed is putting it mildly:

Just before Christmas, a group of self-styled moderates launched a campaign against “hyper-partisanship”. The group calls itself No Labels. “We are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are united in the belief that we do not have to give up our labels, merely put them aside to do what’s best for America,” says their website.

Oh dear. Accentuate the negative, as any marketing expert will tell you. Put the stress on what you are not. No Labels! Well, come to think of it, keep your labels, as the website says: then, united in the belief that you do not have to give them up, put them aside. I think it means keep them out of sight. Wear your label but hide it, with pride, under your coat.

I have another suggestion. No Ideas. Or how about: No Point? Would that be dull enough?

Washington’s partisan warriors of left and right ridicule moderates as unprincipled or clueless or both. Splitting the difference does not give you the right answer, they say. Once in a while, in fact, it might – but in general the partisans are right about this, and the No Labels crowd is the proof.

Ouch.

The thing is, I think Crook is correct. Taking a look at the No Labels website, you see a really slick site talking about working together and all that, but there is no there there. There are no policy ideas, just sentiment.

Which is something that has bothered me about centrists at least as of late: the movement, seems based on niceties more than it does about ideas.

It wasn't always this way. There were what I would call centrist thinkers that proposed ideas that could have been the basis for a real, sustained movement. About ten years ago Ted Halstead along with Michael Lind, put forth a book called The Radical Center. In many ways, this book was a manifesto for centrism in America. Halstead was one of the founders of the New America Foundation and he was able to craft a book crammed with ideas that were not totally left leaning or conservative, but were distinctly American.

Halstead was busy during the Bush years writing opeds promoting centrist ideas. Here's an example from an article he wrote for the Los Angeles Times in 2004:

here are seven big ideas for improving our national condition, each of which defies the conventional political spectrum and could be ripe for the picking by either party:

Every baby a trust-fund baby. Just as the nation broadened the ownership of land in the 19th century through the Homestead Act, and of houses in the 20th century through the mortgage interest tax deduction, expanding the ownership of financial assets should be the cause of the 21st century. British Prime Minister Tony Blair set the example by championing a law that endows every British newborn with financial assets from birth. We should follow suit and inaugurate a new era of universal capitalism in the United States.

Universal coverage for universal responsibility. Why not approach health insurance like car insurance by making it mandatory? Coupled with public subsidies for those who need them, mandatory insurance could cover all 43 million uninsured Americans and lower the cost of coverage for those who are insured (by broadening the risk pool to include the young and healthy, the 18- to 34-year-olds who are the most likely to be uninsured), all while costing the government less than Kerry's plan, which is said to reach 27 million uninsured.

Tax consumption, not work. You would never know it by listening to politicians, but more than 70% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in any other tax. Yet no other tax does more to retard job creation or to reduce take-home pay, especially among low-income workers. By eliminating the payroll tax and replacing it with a progressive national consumption tax, we could create a lot more jobs and generate a lot more savings -- thereby solving our two greatest economic problems at once.

End all farm subsidies. Our farm subsidies are vestiges of the past. They harm farmers and the environment, create agricultural gluts, retard global free trade, hurt Third World countries and cost taxpayers $20 billion a year. By ending these subsidies, we could not only alleviate these various problems but free up the resources to, say, endow every child from birth with financial assets. While we're at it, let's end all forms of corporate welfare, which would free up an additional $50 billion for better uses.

Family-friendly workplaces. Although the traditional family is no longer the norm, our workplaces have yet to adapt, penalizing those who need flexibility to fulfill their caregiving responsibilities, often by depriving them of good jobs and basic benefits. This two-tier labor market should be ended by making basic benefits citizen-based instead of employer-based and by giving all workers the flexibility of today's part-time workers, along with the benefit security of full-time workers.

A race to energy independence. It is a cliche that the United States should pursue energy independence with the same vigor that once fueled its race to space. Yet we lack a viable plan to light this new fire. The answer may lie in another recent revolution -- the biotech one -- in which a competition between private industry and a public consortium greatly accelerated the mapping of the human genome. Why not apply a similar model to energy efficiency by funding a high-profile contest between public and private parties?

Building a global middle class. At a time of a ballooning trade deficit and global overcapacity, the U.S. needs other countries to consume more and to export less. The best way to accomplish both is by exporting the middle-class development model (such as 30-year mortgages) that created mass affluence in our own nation half a century ago. By recasting the globalization debate around the overarching goal of building a global middle class, we could promote prosperity and stability at home and abroad.

Halstead was not just griping about the current state of political parties, he was actually putting forth ideas.

Halstead stepped down as chairman of New America in 2007 and his bio says he's involved in a new green startup and sailing around the world with his wife. Frankly, I wished he would get out of his boat and get back to providing some new ideas.

The reason at times that I've become cynical about centrism in the United States is because it doesn't seems to stand for much of anything, presents few new ideas, and does very little except complain.

I miss not having thinkers like Ted Halstead around. We need someone like that to fire the imagination of centrists in America.

In December I agreed with Crook's assessment of No Labels and wrote the following:

My ongoing problem with No Labels is that I think it is another weak-willed effort to come up with some effort calling on politicians to be nice and nothing more. There is little talk of ideas that might be able to move the country forward.

What I’d love to see is a true centrist ideology, along the lines that Crook talks about or maybe the classical liberal model found in the Free Democrats in Germany or the Liberal Democrats in the UK. Yes, civility is important, but frankly I want bold ideas and people willing to back them up.

I feel bad talking smack about a movement that is all about civility. But at the end of the day, I also think that ideas count for something as well in a democratic society.

I would agree that the advent of Amazon and e-readers like the Kindle have made bricks and mortar stores obsolete, but I also think the damage done to Borders was just as much the fault of Borders than it was technology. The bookstore chain was slow to getting online and even today, it’s web presence is not that great. Recently, I was looking to purchase a book and wanted to see if I could buy it at the Borders website. The price for that book was twice as much as it was on Amazon. Borders wasn’t even close to being competative with the Amazon. If the chain wants to survive, it’s going to have to make the website on par with Amazon and be ready to play hardball.

Barnes and Noble saw the handwriting on the wall and has been able to keep up with Amazon, not only on the web, but also in the e-reader market with its own machine- the Nook.

Borders in many ways was stuck in its heyday of the mid-to-late 1990s, long before Amazon and anything like a Kindle or the Nook. It never really took the changes in the book market, from brick and mortar to the web, seriously and it has paid for that ignorance dearly.

I don't know what it is with Michigan-based businesses that they get stuck in their halcyon days and don't stay competative. General Motors and Chrysler were saved only because the government came in to get the into shape.

Borders will be a lesson on what not to do when it comes to business and technology.

That said, I will miss the chain. I always liked it more than Barnes and Noble.